I don't know where this thing that "corporations are people" started up. If anything, corporations are more valuable to the world today, and thus deserve more rights than people. Without corporations, you would not have McDonald's. Think about that. A world without McDonald's. People would be starving without McDonald's. Thank you, McDonald's.

Mike_LowELL:I don't know where this thing that "corporations are people" started up. If anything, corporations are more valuable to the world today, and thus deserve more rights than people. Without corporations, you would not have McDonald's. Think about that. A world without McDonald's. People would be starving without McDonald's. Thank you, McDonald's.

Mike_LowELL:I don't know where this thing that "corporations are people" started up. If anything, corporations are more valuable to the world today, and thus deserve more rights than people. Without corporations, you would not have McDonald's. Think about that. A world without McDonald's. People would be starving without McDonald's. Thank you, McDonald's.

What I'd like to know is if corporations are people, why can other people own them?

I would endorse your legal claims if you were making over 250,000 dollars a year, but alas, the purpose of the courts are to ensure that people of my stature and success can hold onto their money. You may consider this unfair, but this is the only way to protect the American dream, to make sure anyone can succeed in this country, and when they get to the top, no number of disastrous decisions can take that away from them.

Ok I am going to form a religion that requires contraception and medical services, then I will suggest my flock finds employment with companies like Hobby Lobby. What happens when you have conflicting religious requirements to be met? Does the corporation win or do the people?

There are two things you learn right fast about corporations: first, they want you to get a wife so you have some coont nagging you to work harder to get promotions. And second, they want you to have kids, so you feel tied down. Workplaces frowning on contraception isn't about being pro-life. It's about being pro-slavery, and you're the slave.

d23:flucto: So it's not ok to argue with the government? You just accept the administrative regulations and like it?

Firstly, if you don't like rules and regulations and organization, then Somalia is for you.

Secondly, there is *no* group of people on the planet that has legislators ears more than corporate executives. My idiot rep, for instance, doesn't even listen to his constituents, it's all ALEC with him. So they have plenty of input on the laws... much more than me. And they biatch more than any group as well. To say that they have no input is asinine. If they want to be in the US follow the law.

I'm in the camp of people that think that if an employer has a religion, they have the right to STFU and not allow it to effect the lives of the employees.If they violate the right to STFU, they have the right to be imprisoned for forcing their beliefs/bullshiat on their employees.

Transubstantive:The whole "corporations are people" thing was a legal fiction used purely as an analogy for certain legal doctrines. The fact that the Supreme Court of the United States decided to turn this into a literal statement is beyond stupid, especially considering they all went to top-tier law schools. It is, without a doubt, the worst SCOTUS decision in the 21st century.

Don't get ahead of yourself. We have another 87 years to try to top it.

Torgo_of_Manos:Cyberluddite: More significantly, the Supremes will essentially be deciding whether a corporation can have a religion and whether it has the right to free exercise of that religion. Since they've already decided that corporations are "persons" with other First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech," i.e., freedom to spend unlimited money to influence elections), it doesn't seem much of a stretch to extend to corporations the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, does it?

Transubstantive:The whole "corporations are people" thing was a legal fiction used purely as an analogy for certain legal doctrines. The fact that the Supreme Court of the United States decided to turn this into a literal statement is beyond stupid, especially considering they all went to top-tier law schools. It is, without a doubt, the worst SCOTUS decision in the 21st century.

DamnYankees:Cyberluddite: More significantly, the Supremes will essentially be deciding whether a corporation can have a religion and whether it has the right to free exercise of that religion. Since they've already decided that corporations are "persons" with other First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech," i.e., freedom to spend unlimited money to influence elections), it doesn't seem much of a stretch to extend to corporations the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, does it?

Exactly right. This makes absolutely no sense at all. The whole point of corporations is that they are separate from their owners. In order to pierce the corporate veil, really specific situations need to apply. How the fark is this supposed to work with religion? What percentage of a companies equity ownership (or are we including creditors also) need to agree on a religious belief for it to be attributable to the corporation they own securities of?

That gives the mischievous lawyer in me the idea of personally suing the owners of a company on the basis that the company sharing its owners' religious beliefs muddies its identity as a separate entity.

I have to admit, this "corporate religion" idea is so nonsensical it is just chock full of unintended consequences-goodness.

Cyberluddite:Since they've already decided that corporations are "persons" with other First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech," i.e., freedom to spend unlimited money to influence elections),

The first amendment doesn't say anything about people having the right of free speech. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech." Any law which abridges freedom of speech is unconstitutional.

Otherwise, I could pass all sorts of crazy-ass laws. Don't like abortion? Pass a law making it illegal for anyone acting as a representative of Planned Parenthood to lobby on their behalf to seek federal, state, or private grants. Don't like hamburgers? You could make it illegal for McDonald's to say their hamburgers taste good. Hey, McDonald's doesn't have the right of free speech, right? They could make it illegal for Fark to parody the news, since it might hurt the news' feelings. Fark.com is a corporation and doesn't have the right of free speech to satirize the news after all.